TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 lol it continues to baffle scientists. Scientists hold theories that our gravity kept the dust off the moon, but it has been refuted over and over. It is just one of those neat things. Also that there are no skeletel remains of a missing link between any species. which is pretty hard for evolutionists to swollow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 I have not seen any scientist being baffled by it, or any scientific dilemma about it. There is no data to conclude such a thing. And no, anthropologists have not yet found the missing link, but seeing how rare fossilization occurs, we might never find it. Doesn't make it any less truthful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 lol acriku, that is the key to evolution. Without that evidance, you have no direct proof and it still stays a tentative theory. You know the scientific method man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 We don't need the missing link to prove evolution. It's already proven, with for example, transitional fossils of mammals to whales (link is somewhere in here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 dont say that to a scientist acriku, you would be laughed at. In fact my physics and biology teacher came together for a talk, (both staunch evolutionists) and one kid in my class was talking about evolution, and how he said that there is no debate that it is true, they both smiled and said, "That is not good science, never say anything is fact." You learn that science is not about assuming things acriku. I am surprised you dont know that homie.lol :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 What am I assuming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 that evolution is a fact. when any credable scientist will tell you that it is just a theory. the best theory out there but still a theory. That means that it is a heavily tested idea, and has not been shot down yet. BUT, is still not accepted as a law and is not even close to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Common descent is a theory and has a lot of evidence to support it, biological evolution is a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 you mean micro or macro evolution as fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 I mean biological evolution. Changing of alleles in a population over time. We've been over this a few times haven't we :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 dude, you keep plugging your ears to reality.lol you admit that evolution is just a theory but you continue to promote it like its some sort of final answer.lol corny head. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Would you like to explain snowflakes? Dust storms? Tornados? Order from nature, how interesting.those are not the same as information. you can find great order in crystalline substances. but it is not the same as information.SETI makes this distinguishment in its criteria to identify intelligent life. What you need to show is information coming from randomness, not just a bunch of shapes- heck even atoms have nice orderly looking shapes to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Still, your only answer seems to be there is no proof..."Second, because you assume the lifeforms are always improving, which is a faith based assumption"They are improving relative to their circumstances. Remember my earlier definition of improving.Moreover, the existance of a few separated species who did not become genetically incompatible (NB what about longevity of evidence in time we do not, acc to you have?) is not evidence disproving that some can."Why can't the highly organized and massively complex network of life be the result of design?" Because the designer is either intensely obtuse (a possiblility, of course), clumsy (again), or reliant on evolution (which rather undermines the situation). Whichever, he has aslo left no clue of his interference, and has left a rather logical alternative explanation.Other than that, there's nothing wrong with that part of the question of ID.So you now have accepted that evolution is possible... as to the intelligence thing...Do you accept that, assuming normal evolution occurs, it can take us up to the intellectual point of, say, a tuna, but not a human? Or do you dislike the idea that we can arrive at neurones? Or have you yet to understand how we can get to chemical intelligence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Still, your only answer seems to be there is no proof...my answer is that the evidence is weak. and not having proof, of course, is a big bonus.They are improving relative to their circumstances. Remember my earlier definition of improving.but they are not improving. new information is not being added. genes are turned off and on (nucleotide insertion)...but nothing NEW is happening. To turn on or off a gene via insertion mutations means that the information was already there. Not only do you have no proof, you don't even have very good evidence! There are no mutations where information is gained...only lost.Moreover, the existance of a few separated species who did not become genetically incompatible (NB what about longevity of evidence in time we do not, acc to you have?) is not evidence disproving that some can.Neither is it evidence for the proposition. You need to establish positive evidence, not just negative evidence. it is not enough to state negative propositions to make an affirmative declarationBecause the designer is either intensely obtuse (a possiblility, of course), clumsy (again), or reliant on evolution (which rather undermines the situation). none of the above. Obviously your statement assumes evolution, which can defined as life by random mutations gaining new information in an upward spiral. a big assumption indeed, since no evidence supports it.So you now have accepted that evolution is possible.no.Do you accept that, assuming normal evolution occurs, it can take us up to the intellectual point of, say, a tuna, but not a human? Or do you dislike the idea that we can arrive at neurones? Or have you yet to understand how we can get to chemical intelligence? but i havent assumed normal evolution occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 "Since I cannot PROVE design, by default that makes your theory POSSIBLE. And since you cannot PROVE your theory, that by default makes ID POSSIBLE. But you choose to believe the former, while I believe the latter"""So you now have accepted that evolution is possible."no."Are you going to choose?"new information is not being added. genes are turned off and on (nucleotide insertion)...but nothing NEW is happening."1. When I program a computer, 0s and 1s are being assembed. Bits are turned on and off, but nothing NEW is happening, is that correct? "There are no mutations where information is gained"2. That makes no sense. Mutations can add information, by, say, changing information for a chemical reaction which will in turn affect the performance and efficiency of the individual and its offspring."defined as life by random mutations gaining new information in an upward spiral"Do you know about the idea that a monkey with a typewriter will eventually come up with the entire works of Shakespeare, if left long enough?"my answer is that the evidence is weak. and not having proof, of course, is a big bonus."So you have no LOGIC against it, only complaints about lack of evidence (and no evidence of your own). I have no evidence to hand, but I DO have logic."but i havent assumed normal evolution occurs"I'm not asking you to accept it does, only to assume it does for the purposes of that part. Can you not do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 In deletion of genes, they are not being lost if you want to think that insertion is not adding, they are putting genes back into the cytoplasm. So what is being lost, and where does it go?And how is the evidence weak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 " Are you going to choose?i chose long ago. i think i've communicated that choice clearly in these forums. ;)1. When I program a computer, 0s and 1s are being assembed. Bits are turned on and off, but nothing NEW is happening, is that correct? incorrect. when you take an 8 bit computer program and add 128 more bits, new information is added. not the case with life. " So you have no LOGIC against it, only complaints about lack of evidence (and no evidence of your own). I have no evidence to hand, but I DO have logic."a ton of logic, i guess you haven't read through it. go look at some of the links Gob supplied- they contain a lot of logic, most of which I have re-iterated in one form or another on these threads. Gob post #1 Gob post #2 Logic I have provided #1 OR Logic I have provided #2 So i have indeed provided some logic here, that apparantly you are either not reading or just dismissing as irrational. Note: I do not call your logic that leads you to conclude as irrational. you actually think these people have no logic or evidence for their views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 I replied to the blood clotting post, with a possible answer. The answer hasn't been disproven so it is yet to be determined whether or not it is correct. And finding information that we can't explain has no bearing on the theory of evolution, because you are not disproving evolution you are trying to discredit it by show of what you do not understand, and what scientists don't yet understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 and i replied to your reply. The point is, Acriku, that it IS logical, whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. you have logic for your views, i have them for mine. I HAVE provided logic for my views. I do not appreciate Nema coming in here after perhaps 100 posts by me and accuse me of providing no logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 How do you know it is logical? It may be logical to you, but someone that might be an expert on it might know it is illogical, so don't assume it is correct just because you find it logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i never said anyone was illogical.you calling me illogical is arrogant.i have provided logic for my views. the logic does not commit any fallacies, therefore it cannot be called "illogical" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 My fricking god, no one called you illogical you insecure freak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Posted by: Acriku- Posted on: Today at 12:57:20 My fricking god, no one called you illogical you insecure freak. then dont say i have provided no logic.2nd: stop swearing, your lack of control is not becomming, even if you didnt spell it right.3rd: personal insults are not appropriate.4th: what does God have to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 So now I can't say fricking? And I gave you a hypothetical situation in which just because you thought you were logical, but someone with more information on the subject knows that it is illogial. Then you go all insecure on me. Might I add you insulted me many times in this thread, and when I say you are an insecure freak you tell ME not to insult you. Phh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i dont recall insulting you, but even if I did, that should not mean a deliberate retallitory insult. I dont appreciate anyone saying I have provided no logic when I have.you just don't agree with it. If you are going to say I have not provided sound logic, demonstrate to me what fallacies I commited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.